When are they going to admit that Iraq is a strategic conquest?

[xpanda]

On November 10, 2001, the State Department issued a statement listing the countries where Al Qaeda operatives were located.

Here's the map:

And the list of countries:

Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

Notice anything???

You'll also recall that in February of 2001, Colin Powell justified the ongoing sanctions in Iraq (this was backed by Rice within days) by stating that Saddam had no WMDs and, if he did develop them, he would be a threat not to the US, but to his neighbours.

They don't even try to cover their own lies.

Why won't they just admit that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with WMDs and Al Qaeda and everything to do with geopolitics? Why won't they tell you they've sacrificed the lives of 1000 Americans and some 20,000 Iraqis in order to prepare for a fight with Iran?

Why are you letting them get away with this?


"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us."
- Richard Perle

"Iraq is just one battle in a larger war, bringing down the regime in Iran is the central act, because Iran is the world's most dangerous terrorist country."
- Michael Ledeen

 

[PatPatriot]

Hey snookems...I see you made sure to take Iraq off that list!


Never mind I just read the rest of it.

 

[PatPatriot]

You'll also recall that in February of 2001, Colin Powell justified the ongoing sanctions in Iraq (this was backed by Rice within days) by stating that Saddam had no WMDs and, if he did develop them, he would be a threat not to the US, but to his neighbours.

Well there was a little incident that happned to knock the snot out of the economy for 2 years that happend 7-8 mos. later that INTENTIONALLY killed 3000 INNOCENT people that changed that approach.
By the the way,one guy who rhetoric was the most hawkish on Iraq before 9/11 was Clinton.Kerry of course sucking his dick to follow his political coatails was also very hawkish in hi rhetoric BEFORE 9/11.

 

[xpanda]

Except that Saddam having or not having WMDs had sweet fückall to do with 9/11.

You cannot use 9/11 as an excuse to bomb the snot out of any country you feel like. Think of the long-term consequences if you continue to do so. Your allies will completely abandon you, your trade partners may well scale back business, the world market may decide not to use the US dollar as the base currency, etc. You simply cannot engage yourselves internationally while simultaneously behaving as though your actions abroad are based on isolationist, unilateralist approaches.

Here, there is much buzz about transferring our economic focus to the EU and China and away from the US. People genuinely feel as though your country has lost its mind, and nobody wants to go down with you.

You can say 'fück 'em' all you like, but you know your country will collapse if it isn't propped up by the rest of the world.

(Btw, Clinton and Kerry have NOTHING to do with the Bush administration's mandate in the Middle East. To justify Bush's actions by slandering either of these guys is pitiful and cowardly -- it shows you cannot justify these acts on their own merit.)

 

[PatPatriot]

You can say 'fück 'em' all you like, but you know your country will collapse if it isn't propped up by the rest of the world.

(Btw, Clinton and Kerry have NOTHING to do with the Bush administration's mandate in the Middle East. To justify Bush's actions by slandering either of these guys is pitiful and cowardly -- it shows you cannot justify these acts on their own merit.)<!-- / message -->

1. That works both ways.

2. Their is nothing slanderous about it I can give you direct quotes from both these frauds,and if you didn't know who was speaking you would think it was Bush,and that was before 9/11.

The Bush doctrine in which he gave in his first major adress after 9/11 stated that "any country supporting or harboring terroist" we will go after one way or another.
Iraq was on the shiit list because of 17 UN resolutions and because Saddam outside of being a self contained wmd himself was supporting and harboring terrorism.

 

[xpanda]

Yes, I realise it works both ways. That's why other countries don't go around bombing their enemies without the endorsement of other countries, especially the US. If a rule is to apply to us, it has to apply to you, too. It's that simple.

If it was wrong for Saddam to take Kuwait in an effort to get closer to Saudi Arabia and its oil reserves, then it's equally wrong for the US to invade Iraq to get closer to Iran and its natural gas reserves, too. It is even more wrong to take the fight 'to the terrorists' by using the Iraqi people as bait.

There is such an extreme lack of morality in all of this .... why don't you see it??

(please don't respond with some useless dribble about Clinton or Kerry.)

 

[xpanda]

The Bush doctrine in which he gave in his first major adress after 9/11 stated that "any country supporting or harboring terroist" we will go after one way or another.

...or, anyone who happens to be close by, or strategically located between two countries who really ARE harbouring terrorists. Like Iraq, for example.

Iraq was on the shiit list because of 17 UN resolutions and because Saddam outside of being a self contained wmd himself was supporting and harboring terrorism.

What 'terrorism' was Saddam harbouring and supporting to such a degree that he became Public Enemy #1?

Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector and American on September 8, 2002:

"Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites, including the security of Saddam Hussein.

And so that's why I've proposed that a mechanism be put forward that provides a confidence-building measure for the Iraqi government so they can allow these inspectors to return unconditionally and give them unfettered access.

So it's going to take awhile to convince Iraqis that they should once again trust inspectors. But frankly, they have no choice."

As you say, it works both ways. The Bush admin's stubborn failure to not take into consideration how US actions helped set the stage for a lack of diplomacy between the two countries is obvious.

Restoring diplomacy and trust of inspectors was a non-issue anyway. The UN inspections had nothing to do with this war, except as a tool to 'reshape fundamental attitudes' of the American people toward multilateralism.

Recall:

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us."
- Richard Perle

How come the whole world can see it but you?

 

[PatPatriot]

There is such an extreme lack of morality in all of this .... why don't you see it??

Of course I see it.War in any form is immoral.But what the hell are you supposed to to do? I'm not the CIA...I mean who are you going to trust?Radical ragheads with sucide belts on or your own Gov.
I mean how long do we have to wait for these sewers to fester?
Eventually the US will have to clean up the mess.

I wish you could have heard Tom freidman the other day on Imus.(Iknow you don't like him ) He made a lot of sense, and no he wasn't war m o ngering either.He just put some more perspective on it....he's pretty good he studies that *CENSOR**CENSOR**CENSOR**CENSOR* intensley.

 

[American]

The U.S. is doing the world a favor by not letting any smaller, radical, unpredictable country get too powerful. Iraq was definately a strategic move, and a good one.

 

[xpanda]

Patriot: Part of Friedman's interview on Imus:

"I have had a chance to sit back and listen and not talk for these last three months and what I find is that people are torn between two emotions. One is that I think people really feel that we have real enemies out there. You don't have to tune in to too many videos of people sawing peoples heads off or see what is going on in Indonesia or Madrid to know that we have real enemies out there who we have to engage. I think people really feel that.

"I think the other thing people really feel is that we are really on the wrong track and that we do not have a policy that somehow is really confronting this thing without making it worse and doing it in a way that really has allies around the world. It is very hard to fight that kind of an enemy alone.

"I think the election is really going to hinge on which two of those issues dominate. I think the Republicans are trying to keep the focus entirely on how much we have enemies and how frightened we should be about them in order to deflect attention away from the issue of 'we really are not on the right track.'"

American: a. why won't they admit this to the American public and the world? b. please explain why it is okay to put the lives of innocent civilians at risk under false pretenses?

I don't understand you people.

 

[PatPatriot]

X I wish you would have posted the whole thing.(if you have the whole thing).

 

[xpanda]

The entire transcript isn't available .. this was all I found. There probably is more of it available, but hey.

Just borrowed a book from a friend: From Beirut to Jerusalem by Friedman.

 

[SportSavant]

Radical ragheads

Patriot.... I have no doubt that when you get out of a cab or a convenience store where an ethic person is working...

Even prior to 9/11...

you say to yourself & your friends something like "phucking ragheads....". The person may be budhist or Hindu & peace loving, but people like you make no distinction....

 

[PatPatriot]

SS would it bother you if I called a KKK member a raghead?